Limited upload rights for NMs GR Proposal

Bastian Venthur · External Since: Oct 25, 2006 Posts: 262

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[Same proposal, this time signed.]

Hi,

Since I don't agree that we don't need a new class of contributors but
very much like the idea to grant some of the proposed DM rights to New
Maintainers after a certain point in their NM career, I propose a
different solution.

The idea is to grant NMs limited upload rights after they're certified
"almost DDs", in a stage where they usually just have to wait (quiet
long) for their AM-report, FD and DAM.

I think the best point is when the AM confirmed that they have passed
all the tests but hasn't yet written the report. After the AM thinks his
applicant has successfully passed all tests, the AM can upload the NM's
key to a new NM-keyring which will enable the new limited upload rights
to the NM.

The keyring maintainers, FD and DAM still have a veto right remove the
applicant again which does not necessarily imply that the NM himself is
rejected. AMs are only allowed to add or remove their own applicants to
the keyring.

Please comment, send patches or second.

=== BEGIN OF THE PROPOSAL ===

The Debian Projects grants limited upload rights to New Maintainers
after their Application Manager (AM):

* confirmed that the New Maintainer successfully passed the ID-, T&S-
and P&P check
* added the New Maintainer's key to the New Maintainer Keyring

If one of the following instances (currently DAM and FD) decides that
the AM's report was incomplete or reject the New Maintainer for other
reasons, the New Maintainer will immediately lose the limited upload
rights until an application manager recommends him again to to DAM.

The following instances have also the right to revoke the limited upload
rights without rejecting the New Maintainer.

The limited upload rights are defined below:

* none of the uploaded packages are NEW
* the Maintainer: field of the uploaded .changes file corresponds with
the owner of the key used (ie, non-developer maintainers may not
sponsor uploads)
* none of the packages are being taken over from other source packages
* the most recent version of the package uploaded to unstable or
experimental lists the uploader in the Maintainer: or Uploaders:
fields (ie, non-developer maintainers cannot NMU or hijack packages)

A new keyring will be created, called the "New Maintainer Keyring". It
will be maintained by:

* the Debian Account Managers
* the New-maintainer Front Desk
* the Debian Keyring Maintainers
* the Application Managers

Application Managers have access to the NM-keyring, but are expected to
add/remove keys of their own New Maintainer applicants only.

The keyring will be packaged for Debian, and regularly uploaded
to unstable.

=== END OF THE PROPOSAL ===

Cheers,

Bastian

- --
Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de
Debian Developer venthur at debian org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGkn9wmj66P/Yfc/gRAhwuAJ9UFdymyRxH1Vc9D/itLamrVFsTdgCfY/t5
snRN/saf3NHCmwGMelAtoK4=
=I/fS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Raphael Hertzog · External Since: May 28, 2005 Posts: 534

Hi,

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007, Nico Golde wrote:
> > This feels to me like solving the wrong problem. If the person really is
> > ready to become a DD, it would be better to find ways of addressing the
> > time lag before that process is complete. If there are meaningful final
> > checks, this to an extent bypasses them, which is a little strange. And
> > I'm also worried that it will leave a bunch of people stalled in this
> > limbo for even longer since their upload rights are "good enough" and we
> > lose motivation to finish fully integrating them into the project.
>
> If that would be the case it would be really a shame for the
> Debian project since the process doesnt really influences
> DAM work does it? Think about the opposite, maybe an
> applicant gets processed faster because people saw that he
> knows what he is doing with his own uploads.

I agree with Russ. This proposal is not bringing anything new in the
project. It just works around the delay of DAM.

Your really need to give DM rights on a package basis after a limited T&S
which indicate that you're skilled for the package that you plan on
maintaining. Otherwise you're not letting people contribute sooner.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Don Armstrong · External Since: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 253

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:33:20PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> > * confirmed that the New Maintainer successfully passed the ID-, T&S-
> > and P&P check
>
> I think this is the wrong time. My opinion of current T&S is that it's
> completely on crack, I mean, okay, if one is going to package a library,
> he will have to learn what it means. But how many people are indeed
> packaging libraries ? Not _that_ many. I won't never ever touch a perl
> package, and am unlikely to package a ruby extension.

The T&S section's format is entirely up to the AM; lots of AMs use the
current T&S format because it's easier for them and it at least makes
sure that the NM knows where to find the answers to the questions that
are asked and is reasonably aware of the issues entailed therein.

> A regular work of his NM, watched carefully, is a better T&S that
> what is done right now.

While I can't speak for all AMs, I track what my applicants have done
before I recommend them to become DDs; T&S is just one tool that I
use.

Finally, the ability of maintainers to upload their own packages
without being a DD isn't an attempt to improve the NM process; it's an
attempt to allow people to contribute who may not actually want to
become DDs. Under Antony's proposal, NMs can become DMs at any point
that their AM feels they are ready, be that after T&S, or P&P or
whenever.

Don Armstrong

--
Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the
intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics.
-- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Bastian Venthur · External Since: Oct 25, 2006 Posts: 262

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Steffen Joeris wrote:
>> I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread (took me
>> most of the night Sad

) and after some discussions on IRC, I come up with this
>> proposal.
>
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:33:20PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> Since I don't agree that we don't need a new class of contributors but
>> very much like the idea to grant some of the proposed DM rights to New
>> Maintainers after a certain point in their NM career, I propose a
>> different solution.
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:09:54AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> So I'd gladly support/second a proposal in that direction. But like
>> said, your current one is too shy, and almost worthless as it's a
>> workaround for DAM delays, and not really a valuable improvement of
>> anything.
>
> Just a quick note -- the updated DM proposal's finished it's minimum
> discussion at this point by my count, so if there's some way of
> reconciling some of the alternative ideas to get an actual proposal, it
> might be good to get that done so it can be an alternative on the ballot.

I don't see how I could merge Steffen's proposal with mine. My main
problem with Steffen's proposal and yours is that I'm strictly against
the new DM class as an alternative to the DD (for reasons, I've already
explained in related threads on this list), but still see the need for a
more motivating NM process.

Maybe we could just add both alternatives to the ballot? Razz

Cheers,

Bastian

--
Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de
Debian Developer venthur at debian org

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Bastian Venthur · External Since: Oct 25, 2006 Posts: 262

Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 08:33:20PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>> * confirmed that the New Maintainer successfully passed the ID-, T&S-
>> and P&P check

> So I'd gladly support/second a proposal in that direction. But like
> said, your current one is too shy, and almost worthless as it's a
> workaround for DAM delays, and not really a valuable improvement of
> anything.

I tend to agree with you that the "after ID- T&S- and P&P check" rule,
might be too tight. I tried to find a good balance between ensuring the
NM is qualified enough to grant the rights and not officially(!)
qualified enough for the full DD rights.

So what would you propose as a trigger where the AM can decide to add
the NM to the NM-keyring?

Cheers,

Bastian

--
Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de
Debian Developer venthur at debian org

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org